1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \usepackage{natbib}

4: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

5: \usepackage{apjfonts}

6: \input psfig.tex

7: 

8: \def\aa{{A\&A}}

9: \def\aas{{ A\&AS}}

10: \def\aj{{AJ}}

11: \def\al{$\alpha$}

12: \def\bet{$\beta$}

13: \def\amin{$^\prime$}

14: \def\annrev{{ARA\&A}}

15: \def\apj{{ApJ}}

16: \def\apjs{{ApJS}}

17: \def\asec{$^{\prime\prime}$}

18: \def\baas{{BAAS}}

19: \def\cc{cm$^{-3}$}

20: \def\deg{$^{\circ}$}

21: \def\ddeg{{\rlap.}$^{\circ}$}

22: \def\dsec{{\rlap.}$^{\prime\prime}$}

23: \def\cc{cm$^{-3}$}

24: \def\e#1{$\times$10$^{#1}$}

25: \def\etal{{et al. }}

26: \def\flamb{ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ \AA$^{-1}$}

27: \def\flux{ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$}

28: \def\fnu{ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Hz$^{-1}$}

29: \def\hal{H$\alpha$}

30: \def\hb{H$\beta$}

31: \def\hst{{\it HST}}

32: \def\kms{km s$^{-1}$}

33: \def\lamb{$\lambda$}

34: \def\lax{{$\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}$}}

35: \def\gax{{$\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}$}}

36: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}

37: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}

38: \def\lum{ergs s$^{-1}$}

39: \def\mbh{{$M_{\bullet}$}}

40: \def\micron{{$\mu$m}}

41: \def\mnras{{MNRAS}}

42: \def\nat{{Nature}}

43: \def\pasp{{PASP}}

44: \def\perang{\AA$^{-1}$}

45: \def\percm2{cm$^{-2}$}

46: \def\peryr{yr$^{-1}$}

47: \def\pp{\parshape 2 0truein 6.1truein .3truein 5.5truein}

48: \def\reference{\noindent\pp}

49: \def\refindent{\par\noindent\parskip=2pt\hangindent=3pc\hangafter=1 }

50: \def\solum{$L_\odot$}

51: \def\solmass{$M_\odot$}

52: \def\oii{[\ion{O}{2}]}

53: \def\heii{\ion{He}{2}}

54: \def\hi{\ion{H}{1}}

55: \def\hii{\ion{H}{2}}

56: \def\oiii{[\ion{O}{3}]}

57: \def\ni{[\ion{N}{1}]}

58: \def\oi{[\ion{O}{1}]}

59: \def\nii{[\ion{N}{2}]}

60: \def\hei{\ion{He}{1}}

61: \def\sii{[\ion{S}{2}]}

62: \def\siii{[\ion{S}{3}]}

63: \def\caii{\ion{Ca}{ii}{K}}

64: \def\lhal{$L_{{\rm H}\alpha}$}

65: \def\lbol{$L_{{\rm bol}}$}

66: \def\ledd{$L_{{\rm Edd}}$}

67: \def\mlb{$M_{\bullet}-L_{\rm{bul}}$}

68: \slugcomment{To Appear in {\it

69: The Astrophysical Journal}.}

70: \shorttitle{HE~0450$-$2958}

71: \shortauthors{KIM et al.}

72: \begin{document}

73: \title{The Host Galaxy of the Quasar HE~0450$-$2958}

74: \author{Minjin Kim\altaffilmark{1,2}, Luis C. Ho\altaffilmark{1}, Chien Y. 

75: Peng\altaffilmark{3,4}, and Myungshin Im\altaffilmark{2}}

76: 

77: \altaffiltext{1}{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,

78: 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101.}

79: 

80: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, FPRD, Seoul National 

81: University, Seoul 151-742, Korea.}

82: 

83: \altaffiltext{3}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San

84: Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218.}

85: 

86: \altaffiltext{4}{STScI Fellow.}

87: 

88: \begin{abstract}

89: A recent study suggests that the quasar HE~0450$-$2958 is hosted by a galaxy

90: substantially fainter than that inferred from the correlation between black

91: hole mass and bulge luminosity.  As this result has significant bearings on

92: galaxy and black hole evolution, we revisit the issue by performing an 

93: independent analysis of the data, using a two-dimensional image fitting 

94: technique. We indeed find no evidence of a host galaxy either, but, due to the 

95: brightness of the quasar and uncertainties in the point-spread function, the 

96: limits are fairly weak.  To derive an upper limit on the host galaxy

97: luminosity, we perform simulations to deblend the quasar from the host under

98: conditions similar to those actually observed.  We find that the host galaxy 

99: has an absolute magnitude upper limit of $-20 \lesssim M_V \lesssim -21$, 

100: in good agreement with the previous determination.  Since this limit is 

101: consistent with the value predicted from the current best estimate of the 

102: black hole mass, there is no compelling evidence that the quasar 

103: HE~0450$-$2958 has an abnormally underluminous host galaxy.  We also show 

104: that, contrary to previous claims, the companion galaxy to HE~0450$-$2958 

105: should not be be regarded as an ultraluminous infrared galaxy.

106: \end{abstract}

107: 

108: \keywords{galaxies: active --- galaxies: bulges --- galaxies: fundamental 

109: parameters --- quasars: individual (HE~0450$-$2958)}

110: 

111: \section{Introduction}

112: It is widely accepted that central black holes commonly exist in massive 

113: galaxies and that they play an important role in their evolution (see reviews 

114: in Ho 2004).  This view is in large part motivated by the strong empirical 

115: correlations that exist between black hole mass and host galaxy properties, in 

116: particular the bulge luminosity (\mlb\ relation; Kormendy \& Richstone 1995; 

117: Magorrian et al. 1998) and bulge stellar velocity dispersion (Gebhardt et al. 

118: 2000; Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000).   An intriguing recent observation has 

119: posed a challenge to this picture.  From analysis of high-angular resolution 

120: data on the bright, relatively nearby quasar HE~0450$-$2958, Magain et al. 

121: (2005; hereinafter M05) were not able to detect a host galaxy associated with 

122: this system.  They claim that the black hole in HE~0450$-$2958 

123: is hosted by an exceptionally faint galaxy, in apparent 

124: violation of the \mlb\ relation.  The results of M05 have stimulated lively 

125: debate as to the cause of this apparent anomaly, including the possibility of 

126: the black hole in HE~0450$-$2958 having been ejected from its companion galaxy 

127: in the aftermath of a merger event, either by gravitational radiation recoil 

128: or the slingshot effect from a three-body interaction.  Either of these

129: explanations, if correct, would have important implications for theories 

130: concerning the dynamics and evolution of binary massive black holes.

131: 

132: The analysis of M05, both for their {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)}\ images

133: and ground-based spectra, rely on highly specialized deconvolution methods

134: developed by these authors (Magain et al. 1998; Courbin et al. 2000).  While

135: we do not call into question the reliability of M05's analysis, given the

136: wide-spread interest that their results have generated it would be worthwhile

137: to confirm them independently, preferably using a different technique.  This

138: is the main purpose of this paper, where we attempt to constrain the

139: luminosity of the host of HE~0450$-$2958 using a two-dimensional image fitting

140: program.

141: 

142: HE~0450$-$2958 is a luminous ($M_V = -25.8$ mag)\footnote{We adopt the

143: following cosmological parameters: $H_0 = 100\,h = 71 $\kms~Mpc$^{-1}$,

144: $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.27$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.75$ (Spergel et al.

145: 2003).}, radio-quiet quasar located at a redshift $z = 0.285$. Originally

146: discovered by de Grijp et al. (1987), it has previously been noted for being a

147: prominent infrared source (de Grijp et al. 1987; Low et al. 1988) with 

148: characteristics intermediate 

149: between those of starburst galaxies and quasars, prompting Canalizo \&

150: Stockton (2001) to speculate that the system is undergoing a transition

151: between these two evolutionary phases, plausibly triggered by tidal

152: interaction with a companion located only $\sim$1\farcs5 away.  The field

153: surrounding HE~0450$-$2958 is quite complex (see Fig.~1 and M05).  In addition

154: to the nearby, distorted companion, a bright foreground star sits 2\asec\ in

155: the opposite side of the quasar, and immediately adjacent to the quasar lies a

156: blob of ionized gas.  Given these complications and the large brightness

157: contrast between the quasar and any putative underlying host galaxy, we can

158: anticipate that any robust estimate of the host will be nontrivial (e.g.,

159: Schade et al.  2000).  Nevertheless, our analysis indicates that the current

160: limits cannot exclude the possibility that HE~0450$-$2958 has a normal host

161: galaxy.

162: 

163: \section{Data Reduction and Image Fitting}

164: 

165: The data analyzed in this study were retrieved from the \hst\ archive. The 

166: images were taken on 2004 October 1 (GO 10238; PI: Courbin) with the High 

167: Resolution Channel of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) through the 

168: F606W filter.  Three short exposures of 30~s and three long exposures of 330~s 

169: were taken with dithering. 

170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

171: \begin{figure*}

172: \psfig{file=f1.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

173: \figcaption[f1.eps] {

174: {\sc Galfit} decomposition of the {\it HST}/ACS F606W image of  

175: HE~0450$-$2958.  Each

176: panel is 10\asec$\times$10\asec, with 1\asec\ denoted by the horizontal bar.

177: The original, model, and residual images are shown in the left, middle, and

178: right columns, respectively.  In panel ({\it a}), the model contains the

179: quasar, a host galaxy (modeled with a S\'{e}rsic index $n=1.8$) centered on

180: the quasar, and the foreground star; the companion galaxy was masked out.  The

181: residual image clearly shows the ``blob'' adjacent to the quasar.  In panel

182: ({\it b}), the fit includes both the companion galaxy and the blob, each

183: modeled with S\'ersic components of arbitrary shape described by Fourier modes.

184: \label{fig1}}

185: \end{figure*}

186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

188: %%BoundingBox: 30 220 590 570

189: \begin{figure*}

190: \hskip 0.45in

191: \psfig{file=table1.ps,width=16.5cm,keepaspectratio=true,angle=0}

192: %\vskip 3mm

193: \end{figure*}

194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

195: \noindent

196: To construct a reliable point-spread function 

197: (PSF), several stars, of unknown spectral type selected from the 

198: \textit{HST Guide Star Catalog}, were also observed with the same observing 

199: strategy.  One of the stars was observed during the same orbit as the 

200: science target, while the others were observed during different orbits; 

201: hereinafter we will refer to these as the ``optimal'' PSF and the

202: ``alternative'' PSFs, respectively.

203: Standard data reduction steps, including bias subtraction, flat fielding, 

204: and flux calibration were done by the \hst\ pipeline.  

205: 

206: 

207: We experimented with different ways to combine the drizzled subexposures, by

208: iteratively applying manual shifts to the PSF images.  In the end, we found

209: that the best results were achieved using the Pyraf-based script {\sc

210: Multidrizzle}, using the default coordinate information in the image headers.

211: After applying {\sc Multidrizzle} to each exposure subset, the saturated cores 

212: of the deep image were replaced by the unsaturated cores of the short-exposure 

213: image.

214: 

215: We analyzed the images using an updated version (3.0)\footnote{Documentation

216: and updates at {\tt

217: http://zwicky.as.arizona.edu/$\sim$cyp/work/galfit/galfit.html}} of {\sc

218: Galfit} (Peng et al. 2002; C. Y. Peng et al., in preparation), a program

219: designed to perform two-dimensional fits to \hst\ images of galaxies.  {\sc

220: Galfit} finds an optimal decomposition of a galaxy image into multiple

221: components, each described by a user-specified parametric model properly

222: convolved with an input PSF.  The choice of input PSF is critical.  For

223: objects such as HE~0450$-$2958, where the contrast between the active galactic 

224: nucleus (AGN) and the host galaxy is large, tiny mismatches of the PSF core 

225: will result in large mismatches in the PSF wings, and hence lead to erroneous 

226: inferences on the properties of the host.  To bracket the systematics induced 

227: by PSF variations, we perform our fits using not only the optimal PSF, but 

228: also the three additional alternate PSFs. The variance among the PSFs at the 

229: peak is $20\%$, which is consistent with the genuine PSF variance of ACS 

230: (Jahnke et al. 2004). Note that we do not use synthetic TinyTim (Krist 1995) 

231: PSFs, as these do not give a sufficiently accurate representation of the true 

232: PSF for the present application.

233: 

234: In our first attempt, we masked out the companion galaxy during the fit. We

235: assumed that the luminosity profile of the host galaxy can be described by a

236: single-component S\'{e}rsic (1968) function.  We experimented with three

237: cases: (1) S\'{e}rsic index $n$ = 1, which is equivalent to an exponential

238: profile; (2) $n$ = 4, which is equivalent to a de~Vaucouleurs (1948) profile;

239: and (3) $n$ was allowed to be a free parameter.  We let the program fit for

240: all of the other free parameters: for the host galaxy, these are its position,

241: luminosity, effective radius, axis ratio, and position angle; for the quasar

242: core and foreground star, these are their positions and luminosities.  The

243: case with free $n$ is shown in Figure~1{\it a}.  In the residual image, the

244: peak of the AGN component tends to be oversubtracted, and the blob clearly

245: shows up adjacent to the AGN. The best-fit component for the host galaxy has a

246: very small effective radius (less than one pixel).  This indicates that the

247: fit is unphysical, and is a symptom of {\sc Galfit} trying to assign the

248: residual flux from the PSF mismatch to the host galaxy component.  Varying the

249: input PSF did not help.

250: 

251: Given the proximity of the companion galaxy and the blob to the quasar, they

252: are likely to have a significant effect on the fit.  Thus, we next performed

253: the fit explicitly including these two features, using version 3.0 of {\sc

254: Galfit}, which models the individual components using Fourier modes to allow

255: for nonaxisymmetric shapes.  After some experimentation, we find that the

256: bright knots and the extended halo of the companion can be described by four

257: S\'{e}rsic components, whereas the blob can be fit with just a single

258: S\'{e}rsic component.  The fit using the optimal PSF is shown in Figure~1{\it

259: b}, and the results are summarized in Table~1.  The fit formally yields a host

260: galaxy with $M_V \approx -19.8 \pm 1.5$ mag, depending on the choice of PSF,

261: but we believe this result to be spurious, since the model has a tiny,

262: physically unrealistic effective radius (\lax 1 pixel) and an axis

263: ratio of nearly zero.  The best fit, therefore, fails to yield  

264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

265: \begin{figure*}

266: \psfig{file=f2.eps,width=18.5cm,angle=0}

267: \figcaption[fig2.ps]

268: {Simulated images of HE~0450$-$2958 with an input host galaxy described by

269: ({\it a}) $M_V=-24.2$ mag, $R_{\rm e}$ = 3\farcs4, S\'{e}rsic index $n=4$,

270: and $b/a = 1.0$ and

271: ({\it b}) $M_V=-18.2$ mag, $R_{\rm e}$ = 0\farcs1, $n=4$, and $b/a=1.0$.

272: Each panel is 10\asec$\times$10\asec, with 1\asec\ denoted by the horizontal

273: bar.  The simulated image, nuclei subtracted image after the fit,

274: and residual image are shown in the left, middle, and right

275: columns, respectively.  Both the simulations and the fits were performed using

276: the optimal PSF.

277: \label{fig2}}

278: \end{figure*}

279: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

281: \vskip 0.3cm

282: \psfig{file=f3.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

283: \figcaption[fig3.ps]

284: {

285: Simulation experiments to test the ability of our technique to recover the

286: properties of a hypothetical host galaxy of HE~0450$-$2958.  We show, as a

287: function of input absolute magnitude, $M_V$, residuals in ({\it a}) absolute

288: magnitude $M_V$, ({\it b}) effective radius $R_{\rm e}$, and ({\it c})

289: S\'{e}rsic index $n$.  We consider three models for the host galaxy: $n = 4$

290: ({\it filled circles}), $n = 2.5$ ({\it open circles}), and $n = 1$

291: ({\it stars}).  The effective radius of the simulated galaxies follow the

292: size-luminosity relation of McIntosh et al. (2005); we also show cases

293: corresponding to 0.5$R_{\rm e}$ and 1.5$R_{\rm e}$.  See text for details.

294: The dashed lines and stippled region represent the bulge luminosity (and

295: its 1 standard deviation) for \mbh\ = $9 \times 10^7$ \solmass\ (Merritt

296: et al. 2006) predicted from the \mbh-$L_{\rm bul}$ relation of Marconi \&

297: Hunt (2003).  The relation of  McLure \& Dunlop (2002) would predict a bulge

298: luminosity larger by 0.7 mag.  The solid lines and hatched region denote the

299: limits on the host galaxy luminosity set by our study.  The observational

300: limits on the host galaxy magnitude are consistent with the luminosity

301: expected for the revised black hole mass given by Merritt et al. (2006).

302: \label{fig3}}

303: %\vskip 0.3cm

304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

305: \noindent

306: convincing evidence for a host galaxy.

307: 

308: \section{Simulations}

309: 

310: We first ran purely idealized simulations to determine a robust upper

311: limit for the luminosity of the undetected host galaxy.  Using {\sc Galfit},

312: we generated a set of images wherein, using the optimal PSF, the quasar and

313: the foreground star were placed at their respective locations.  Then,

314: artificial single-component host galaxies with realistic parameters were added

315: on top of the quasar.  Specifically, the galaxies spanned a wide range in

316: absolute magnitude ($-18.2 \leq M_V \leq -24.2$, $\Delta M_V = 1.0$), axis

317: ratio ($b/a$ = 0.7, 0.85, 1.0), and S\'{e}rsic index ($n$ = 1, 2.5, 4).  The

318: effective radius of each galaxy was assigned using the $r$-band

319: size-luminosity relation of local early-type galaxies given by McIntosh et al.

320: (2005), which we assume reasonably approximates the F606W band.  This

321: idealization represents the absolute detection limit given signal-to-noise

322: considerations in the absence of complications, such as PSF mismatches or

323: other non-random structures in the image.

324: 

325: 

326: We simulated a 990~s exposure by adding in an appropriate average sky

327: background, as given in the ACS Instrument Handbook\footnote{{\tt

328: http://www.stsci.edu/hst/acs/documents/handbooks/cycle15/cover.html}}, readout

329: noise, and Poisson noise.  Since in the real observation the bright core was

330: saturated in deep (990~s) image and replaced by the short-exposure (90~s) 

331: image, we increased the noise in the core by a factor of $\sqrt{11}$.

332: Finally, we use {\sc Galfit} to fit the artificial images to recover the host

333: galaxy, again using the optimal PSF.  Figure~2 shows two examples at the 

334: extremes 

335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

336: \vskip 0.3cm

337: \psfig{file=f4.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}

338: \figcaption[fig4.ps]

339: {Similar to Fig.~3, except that here we add the artificial galaxy directly

340: on top of the quasar in the observed image.  The galaxy is assumed to have a

341: S\'{e}rsic index of $n=4$ and an effective radius that follows the

342: size-luminosity relation of McIntosh et al. (2005).  Fits were done using the

343: optimal PSF ({\it solid circles}) and two of the alternate PSFs ({\it open

344: circles}).  In attempting to recover the host galaxy, our fits hold fixed all

345: the parameters, except for the amplitude,

346: of the quasar, blob, companion

347: galaxy, and foreground star, as determined from the best-fit of the original

348: image (Fig.~1{\it b}; Table~1).

349: The upper limit on the host galaxy estimated from this experiment, denoted by

350: the hatched region, is brighter by $\sim 1$ mag than that determined from the

351: more idealized situation in Fig.~3.

352: \label{fig4}}

353: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

354: \vskip 0.3cm

355: \noindent

356: of the luminosity sequence we simulated.

357: The results of our idealized simulations are summarized in Figure 3, where we

358: show, as a function of input host galaxy absolute magnitude, the output

359: residuals in absolute magnitude, effective radius, and S\'{e}rsic index.  As

360: expected, the magnitude residuals grow increasingly larger as the input galaxy

361: becomes fainter.  When {\sc Galfit} fails to detect the host, the S\'{e}rsic 

362: host component competes for the flux in the AGN core itself, resulting

363: in a component that is more luminous (Fig.~3{\it a}) and more compact

364: (Fig.~3{\it b}) than the input model.  Such a spurious object would also tend

365: to have a strong central peak, as evidenced by the large output S\'{e}rsic

366: index (Fig.~3{\it c}).

367: 

368: 

369: How do we establish an upper limit on the host galaxy luminosity?  As

370: mentioned above, when {\sc Galfit} cannot detect a host, the host component

371: competes for the flux from the central AGN core by shrinking in size to mimic

372: a PSF.  Thus, the plot for the residual of the effective radius provides an

373: important diagnostic.  Based on this observation, we estimate that the host

374: galaxy has a likely upper limit of $M_V \approx -20.2\pm1.0$ mag due to purely

375: signal-to-noise considerations.  Changing the input PSF to simulate PSF

376: mismatch does not appreciably change the qualitative behavior of the fit.

377: 

378: The above set of simulations, however, is highly idealized.  In order to make

379: the calculations more realistic, we added the artificial galaxy model directly

380: on top of the quasar in the {\it real}\ science image. For simplicity, we

381: assume an elliptical-like galaxy with $n = 4$, whose size, as above, is

382: specified by the size-luminosity relation. For the fit, we used the optimal

383: PSF plus two of the alternate PSFs.  We held fixed all the parameters for the

384: other components (quasar, blob, companion galaxy, and foreground star), with

385: the exception of their amplitude, based on the best-fitting results from the

386: original image (Table~1).  The trends in the residuals for this set of

387: simulations (Fig.~4) qualitatively resemble those for the idealized set, but

388: in detail they differ due to added complexities in the image.  In particular,

389: the optimal PSF is somewhat better than one of the alternate PSFs at

390: recovering the input model, thereby showing how sensitive the results are to PSF

391: assumptions under high-contrast imaging.

392: 

393: Using again the criterion of $R_{\rm e}$(out)/$R_{\rm e}$(in)$\rightarrow 0$

394: to gauge when the recovered galaxy parameters appear improbable, we estimate 

395: the upper limit of the host's absolute magnitude to be $M_V\approx-21.2\pm1.0$, 

396: roughly 1 magnitude brighter than in the idealized simulations.

397: 

398: 

399: \section{Results and Discussion}

400: 

401: \subsection{The Luminosity of the Host Galaxy}

402: 

403: This study provides a new, independent analysis of the \hst/ACS images of the 

404: quasar system HE~0450$-$2958.  Our analysis is based on direct two-dimensional 

405: fitting of the images.  Consistent with the findings of M05, we also failed to 

406: detect the galaxy presumably hosting the black hole.  We performed extensive 

407: simulations in order to place a robust upper limit on the brightness of the 

408: undetected host.  Depending on the assumptions adopted, our upper limit of the 

409: absolute magnitude of the host galaxy lies in the range $M_V\approx-20$ to 

410: $-21$ mag.  These limits are similar to those found by M05, based on a

411: very different method of analysis.

412: 

413: How luminous do we expect the host galaxy to be?  This can be estimated 

414: from the \mlb\ relation, given a black hole mass.  Assuming that the quasar is 

415: radiating at 50\% of its Eddington limit, M05 estimated 

416: \mbh\ $\approx 8 \times 10^8$ \solmass.  This value, however, is about a 

417: factor of 10 too large.  Merritt et al. (2006) show that HE~0450$-$2958 shares

418: many of the properties of narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies, which are thought

419: to be relatively low-mass black holes radiating near or perhaps even 

420: greater than their Eddington limit (e.g., Collin \& Kawaguchi 2004). From 

421: an analysis of the optical spectra taken by M05, Merritt et al. obtained a 

422: new estimate of the black hole mass using the virial method (e.g., Kaspi et 

423: al. 2000) as presented by Greene \& Ho (2005b).  Depending on the formalism 

424: used, they find \mbh\ $\approx (6-9) \times 10^7$ \solmass.  Choosing, for 

425: concreteness, \mbh\ = $7.5 \times 10^7$ \solmass, the $B$-band \mlb\ relation 

426: of Marconi \& Hunt (2003) for inactive galaxies predicts a bulge absolute 

427: magnitude of $M_B = -18.9$, or $M_V \approx -19.9$ assuming $B-V = 0.96$ mag 

428: for early-type galaxies (Fukugita et al.  1995).  Alternatively, if we adopt

429: the $R$-band \mlb\ relation of McLure \& Dunlop (2002) for active galaxies, 

430: properly adjusted to our cosmology, we obtain $M_R = -21.2$ mag, or 

431: $M_V \approx -20.6$ if $V-R = 0.61$ mag (Fukugita et al.  1995).  

432: Considering the allowed range of black hole masses, the current uncertainty on

433: the zeropoint of the virial mass estimator for AGNs ($\sim 0.5$ dex;

434: Nelson et al. 2004; Onken et al.  2004; Greene \& Ho 2006), and the

435: intrinsic scatter of the \mlb\ relation ($\sim 0.3$ dex; McLure

436: \& Dunlop 2002; Marconi \& Hunt 2003), the predicted host luminosity is 

437: consistent with the observed upper limits.

438: 

439: The above conclusion is subject to three caveats.  First, most nearby 

440: narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies have a disk component in addition to a bulge 

441: (Crenshaw et al. 2003).  Our luminosity limit for the host, therefore, is 

442: uncertain by its unknown bulge-to-total luminosity ratio, which for early-type 

443: spirals is $\sim 0.5$.  Second, we have assumed that narrow-line Seyfert 1 

444: galaxies obey the same black hole-bulge scaling relations as do inactive 

445: galaxies and other classes of AGNs.  Despite claims to the contrary (e.g., 

446: Wandel 2002; Mathur \& Grupe 2005), however, recent studies that directly probe 

447: the stellar component of the host (Barth et al. 2005; Botte et al. 2005; 

448: Greene \& Ho 2005a, 2006) give little reason to suspect that narrow-line 

449: Seyfert 1 galaxies behave abnormally.  Finally, given the quasar-like 

450: luminosity of HE~0450$-$2958, we should bear in mind that any direct analogy 

451: with the typically much less luminous narrow-line

452: Seyfert 1 galaxies is necessarily speculative.

453: 

454: \subsection{The Companion Galaxy is Not a ULIRG}

455: 

456: In the recent literature (e.g., M05; Haehnelt et al. 2006; Hoffman \& Loeb 

457: 2006; Merritt et al. 2006), the companion is often referred to as an 

458: ultraluminous infrared galaxy (ULIRG), by which is meant a highly obscured 

459: system experiencing a high level of ongoing star formation.  This perception 

460: appears to be driven by the association of the HE~0450$-$2958 system with an 

461: infrared-bright source, with the implicit assumption that most of the infrared 

462: emission arises from stellar heating intrinsic to the companion galaxy, by the 

463: fact that the companion has a young stellar population (Canalizo \& Stockton 

464: 2001; M05; Merritt et al.  2006), and the suggestion, based on its apparently 

465: large Balmer decrement, that the companion appears to be highly extincted 

466: (M05).  

467: 

468: We disagree with this assessment, for the following reasons.  Although the 

469: HE~0450$-$2958 system indeed is infrared-bright, we believe that most of the 

470: dust emission is associated with and heated by the quasar itself rather than 

471: the companion galaxy.  (The spatial resolution of the infrared observations 

472: is insufficient to separate the companion from the quasar.) From the 

473: {\it Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS)}\ measurements given in 

474: the {\it IRAS Point Source Catalog}, the infrared flux density ratios of 

475: HE~0450$-$2958 ($S_{25}/S_{60} = 0.32$, $S_{60}/S_{100} = 0.81$) lie in the 

476: regime of AGNs (de Grijp et al. 1987; Low et al. 1988).

477: This indicates that the dust temperature is generally hotter than in typical 

478: starbursts and is more characteristic of AGN heating.  

479: 

480: Our second, more compelling argument is based on the serious inconsistency 

481: between the predicted and actual emission-line strength of the object.  The 

482: total (8--1000 \micron) observed infrared luminosity, $\sim 5.3\times10^{12}$

483: \solum\ (Canalizo \& Stockton 2001, adjusted to our adopted distance), if entirely attributed to star formation, 

484: would correspond to a star formation rate of 840 \solmass\ \peryr, using the 

485: calibration of Bell (2003). 

486: This estimate is severely at odds with the optical spectrum 

487: of the companion galaxy, which shows only weak emission lines superposed 

488: on a {\it post}-starburst spectrum (Canalizo \& Stockton 2001; Merritt et al. 

489: 2006).  According to the calibration of Kewley et al. (2004), and assuming 

490: solar abundances, a star formation rate of 840 \solmass\ \peryr\ would 

491: generate a luminosity of $1.2\times10^{44}$ \lum\ for the \oii\ \lamb 3727 

492: emission line, or a line flux of $f_{\rm [O~II]} = 4.8\times10^{-13}$ \flux\ for

493: a distance of 1452 Mpc.  This value is over 800 times larger than the actual 

494: flux ($f_{\rm [O~II]} = 5.9\times10^{-16}$ \flux) we measured from the 

495: flux-calibrated spectrum published by Merritt et al. (2006), kindly sent to us 

496: by T.  Storchi-Bergmann.  Note that this value is probably an upper limit, 

497: since it is likely that there is some contamination from the narrow-line 

498: emission of the nearby quasar.  One cannot appeal to high levels of extinction 

499: to hide the \oii\ emission, because the Balmer decrement of the companion is 

500: actually rather modest, contrary to the assertion of M05.  In the observed 

501: spectrum, the H\bet\ line indeed does appear to be rather weak with respect to 

502: H\al, but this is partly due to dilution with strong H\bet\ absorption from A 

503: stars.  A proper measurement of the Balmer decrement requires careful 

504: decomposition of the starlight from the line emission (e.g., Ho et al. 

505: 1997).  After subtracting a synthetic model for the starlight from the 

506: observed spectrum, Merritt et al. find H\al/H\bet\ = 4.6, which, for a 

507: standard Galactic extinction curve, corresponds to an extinction of $A_V 

508: \approx 1.5$ mag---certainly non-negligible, but not much larger than for

509: late-type spirals.  Correcting the \oii\ line for this level of extinction

510: would raise the inferred star formation rate by a factor of 8.8, to $\sim 8.9$

511: \solmass\ \peryr, but still far less than needed to match the value deduced

512: from the observed infrared luminosity.

513: 

514: From the above considerations, one cannot escape the conclusion that the 

515: companion galaxy to HE~0450$-$2958 is most likely {\it not}\ a ULIRG.  While 

516: the close proximity and distorted morphology of the companion galaxy certainly 

517: suggest that it is interacting with the quasar, the lack of any concrete 

518: evidence that it is a massive, gas-rich merger of the ULIRG variety diffuses 

519: some of the recent motivation for considering merger-driven scenarios to 

520: interpret this system.

521: 

522: \section{Summary}

523: 

524: We perform the two dimensional fit to the \hst/ACS image of the bright 

525: quasar HE~0450$-$2958 and several detailed simulations to investigate the 

526: extent to which this object lacks a surrounding host galaxy, as suggested 

527: in the recent literature.  The host galaxy is not detected in our 

528: two-dimensional fitting.  Our simulations indicate that the likely 

529: upper limit of the host galaxy luminosity is $-20 \lesssim M_V \lesssim

530: -21$ mag, depending on the assumptions adopted.  Our upper limits are very 

531: similar to the value of $M_V \approx -21.2$ mag determined by M05, using a 

532: completely independent technique based on deconvolution.  Considering the 

533: black hole mass for HE~0450$-$2958 revised by Merritt et al. (2006), 

534: \mbh\ $\approx\, (6-9) \times 10^7$ \solmass, these limits are not in conflict 

535: with the luminosity of the host predicted from the \mlb\ relation, provided 

536: that the bulge-to-disk ratio of the host is not exceptionally unusual.  There 

537: is no evidence that HE~0450$-$2958 contains a ``naked'' quasar or one hosted by 

538: an anomalously faint galaxy.

539: 

540: Lastly, we point out that the companion galaxy to the quasar is most likely 

541: not an ultraluminous infrared galaxy.  The star formation rate inferred from 

542: the infrared emission far exceeds the amount estimated from the strength of 

543: the \oii\ \lamb 3727 line.  We argue that most of the infrared 

544: emission is associated with the quasar itself.

545: 

546: \acknowledgements 

547: The work was supported by the Carnegie Institution of Washington and by NASA

548: grant HST-AR-10969.03 from the Space Telescope Science Institute (operated by 

549: AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555). M.~K. and M.~I. acknowledge the 

550: support from the BK21 program and grant R01-2006-00-10610-0

551: provided by the Basic Science Research Program of the Korea Science and 

552: Engineering Foundation. C.~Y.~P. acknowledges support through the STScI 

553: Institute Fellowship program. We thank Thaisa Storchi-Bergmann

554: for sending us the reduced ground-based spectra of HE~0450$-$2958.  We are 

555: grateful to the referee for a timely and helpful review.

556: 

557: \begin{thebibliography}{}

558: 

559: \bibitem[]{463}

560: Barth, A. J., Greene, J. E., \& Ho, L. C. 2005, \apj, 619, L151

561: 

562: \bibitem[]{466}

563: Bell, E.~F. 2003, \apj, 586, 794

564: 

565: \bibitem[]{469}

566: Botte, V., Ciroi, S., di Mille, F., Rafanelli, P., \& Romano, A. 2005, \mnras, 

567: 356, 789

568: 

569: \bibitem[]{473}

570: Canalizo, G., \& Stockton, A. 2001, \apj, 555, 719

571: 

572: \bibitem[]{476}

573: Collin, S., \& Kawaguchi, T. 2004, \aa, 426, 797

574: 

575: \bibitem[]{479}

576: Courbin, F., Magain, P., Kirkove, M., \& Sohy, S. 2000, \apj, 529, 1136

577: 

578: \bibitem[]{482}

579: Crenshaw, D. M., Kraemer, S. B., \& Gabel, J. R. 2003, \aj, 126, 1690

580: 

581: \bibitem[]{485} 

582: de Grijp, M.~H.~K., Lub, J., \& Miley, G.~K. 1987, \aaps, 70, 95 

583: 

584: \bibitem[]{488}

585: de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Ann. d'Ap., 11, 247

586: 

587: \bibitem[]{491}

588: Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. 2000, \apj, 539, L9

589: 

590: \bibitem[]{494}

591: Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Ichikawa, T. 1995, PASP, 107, 945

592: 

593: \bibitem[]{497}

594: Gebhardt, K., et al.  2000, \apj, 539, L13

595: 

596: \bibitem[]{500}

597: Greene, J. E., \& Ho, L. C. 2005a, \apj, 627, 721

598: 

599: \bibitem[]{503}

600: ------. 2005b, \apj, 630, 122

601: 

602: \bibitem[]{506}

603: ------. 2006, \apj, 641, L21

604: 

605: \bibitem[]{509}

606: Haehnelt, M. G., Davies, M. B., \& Rees, M. J. 2006, \mnras, 366, L22

607: 

608: \bibitem[]{512}

609: Ho, L. C. 2004, ed., Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1: 

610: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

611: 

612: \bibitem[]{516}

613: Ho, L.~C., Filippenko, A.~V., \& Sargent, W.~L.~W. 1997, \apjs, 112, 315

614: 

615: \bibitem[]{519}

616: Hoffman, L., \& Loeb, A. 2006, \apj, 638, L75

617: 

618: \bibitem[]{522}

619: Jahnke, K., et al. 2004, \apj, 614, 568

620: 

621: \bibitem[]{525}

622: Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T., \& Giveon, U. 

623: 2000, \apj, 533, 631

624: 

625: \bibitem[]{529}

626: Kewley, L.~J., Geller, M.~J., \& Jansen, R.~A. 2004, \aj, 127, 2002

627: 

628: \bibitem[]{532}

629: Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D.~O. 1995, \annrev, 33, 581

630: 

631: \bibitem[]{535}

632: Krist, J. 1995, in ASP Conf. Ser. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and 

633: Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, \& J. J. E. Hayes (San Francisco: ASP)

634: , 349

635: 

636: \bibitem[]{540}

637: Low, F. J., Cutri, R. M., Huchra, J. P., \& Kleinmann, S. G. 1988, \apj, 327,

638: L41

639: 

640: \bibitem[]{544}

641: Magain, P., Courbin, F., \& Sohy, S. 1998, \apj, 494, 472

642: 

643: \bibitem[]{547}

644: Magain, P., Letawe, G., Courbin, F., Jablonka, P., Jahnke, K.,

645: Meylan, G., \& Wisotzki, L. 2005, Nature, 437, 381 (M05)

646: 

647: \bibitem[]{551}

648: Magorrian, J., et al.  1998, \aj, 115, 2285

649: 

650: \bibitem[]{554}

651: Marconi, A., \& Hunt, K. L. 2003, \apj, 589, L21 

652: 

653: \bibitem[]{557}

654: Mathur, S., \& Grupe, D. 2005, \apj, 633, 688

655: 

656: \bibitem[]{560}

657: McIntosh, D. H., et al. 2005, \apj, 632, 191

658: 

659: \bibitem[]{563}

660: McLure, R. J., \& Dunlop, J. S. 2002, \mnras, 331, 795 

661: 

662: \bibitem[]{566}

663: Merritt, D., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Robinson, A., Batcheldor, D., Axon, D., \& 

664: Cid Fernandes, R. 2006, \mnras, 367, 1746

665: 

666: \bibitem[]{570}

667: Nelson, C.~H., Green, R. F., Bower, G., Gebhardt, K., \& Weistrop, D. 

668: 2004, \apj, 615, 652

669: 

670: \bibitem[]{574}

671: Onken, C.~A., Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., Peterson, B.~M., Pogge, R. W., 

672: Vestergaard, M., \& Wandel, A. 2004, \apj, 615, 645

673: 

674: \bibitem[]{578}

675: Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., \& Rix, H.-W. 2002, \aj, 124, 266

676: 

677: \bibitem[]{581}

678: Schade, D. J., Boyle, B. J., \& Letawsky, M. 2000, \mnras, 315, 498

679: 

680: \bibitem[]{584}

681: S\'{e}rsic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (C\'ordoba: Obs. Astron.,

682:  Univ. Nac. C\'ordoba)

683: 

684: \bibitem[]{588}

685: Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175

686: 

687: \bibitem[]{591}

688: Vanden Berk, D. E., et al. 2001, \aj, 122, 549

689: 

690: \bibitem[]{594}

691: Wandel, A. 2002, \apj, 565, 762

692: 

693: \end{thebibliography}

694: \end{document}

695: